Ignorance and the Bible

[Ross Dolan]

Either your illiterate and can’t comprehend my posts or your a fucking liar.

Fucking brilliant!

 

[martin]

I think it's allegory and written to make a theological point

In that case it seems intellectually dishonest. The context of supernatural belief invites a literal interpretation.

 

[EdwinA]

I might be the only poster on this thread acknowledging the validity of views other than my own.



I have yet to see an atheist make a clear statement that atheism might be wrong, or openly state that it's very possible the early church bishops knew exactly who wrote the gospels

They were based on earlier writings as well as oral traditions; the whole 'theyz wuz a wroten yeers l8ter n stuff !' idiocy only appeals to morons and deviants. They actually think that would mean they get to pull all kinds of stupid shit out of their asses and everybody has to take their idiot fantasies seriously.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Never angry here. Nobody on this forum is worth it. So, once again, your “evaluation” technique sucks.

Nor irrational. Rational people, those who accept science over supernatural, know that both the birth and the resurrection narratives are scientifically impossible. Rational people require evidence. Irrational people require faith.

Yeah, I’m Abbie Normal on this subject, too, because most people aren’t aware of the Synoptic Problem. Either are you, apparently. Or you’re incapable of addressing the issues. Instead, two of you concoct absurd “alternate facts”. Additionally, both of you twist my words to the point of lying about them. Don’t do that anymore.

Your posts prove different. When you become emotional, engage in name-calling and use angry words in your posts, you're clearly angry.

Rational people accept the science and the realm of the natural world. You're free to lie that I believe in the virgin birth, but that just goes to prove your how much your anger is blinding you. You're free to "disbelieve" a human being could survive being crucified for half a day even if they died later of infection. Rational people accept the possibility since it's happened before. Angry, highly emotional, narrow-minded people are free to deny it ever happened.

Crucifixion - New World Encyclopedia

www.newworldencyclopedia.org

It was, however, possible to survive crucifixion, and there are records of people who did. The historian Josephus, a Judaean who defected to the Roman side during the Jewish uprising of 66 - 72 C.E., describes finding two of his friends crucified. He begged for and was granted their reprieve; one died, the other recovered. Josephus gives no details of the method or duration of crucifixion before their reprieve.

Thanks for your straw man arguments. Like with Perry Penis-Lover, they are insightful.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

In that case it seems intellectually dishonest. The context of supernatural belief invites a literal interpretation.

Like MAGAts, primitive people often only see what they want to see. Is there any doubt all of them believed in ghosts, spirits and magic spells be they Roman or Jew?

Why would a normal, rational, educated person in the 21st Century say "Either the entire story must be taken literally or it should all be tossed as a complete fabrication"?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Either your illiterate and can’t comprehend my posts or your a fucking liar.

Fucking brilliant!

IIrony

 

[Cypress]

In that case it seems intellectually dishonest. The context of supernatural belief invites a literal interpretation.

We're to accustomed from college to reading books in the literary style of analytical history, scientific writing, modern biography.

The entire Baghavad Gita relies on mythological writing to convey what they believed were universal truths and to make serious religious points.
The entire Norse Icelandic Sagas weave a lot of mythological elements alongside some reliable historical facts. I don't think it's because they got together and decided to lie. Myth was how universal truths, values, cultural zeitgeist were transmitted.

It doesn't mean they were nefariously conspiring to lie.


At the end of the day whether Jesus walked on water or was born from a Virgin has no bearing on the core concepts of grace, ethics, and salvation in Christian theology.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Think man, Think!

Just because it was written in 80 AD doesn't mean it's only based on information Luke found and collected just in the year 80 AD.

Luke was a companion of Paul, and during Paul's life some of the apostles were still alive. When Luke wrote his Gospel he was drawing on information that he came into possession of long before 80 AD. Paul's ministry was in the 50s AD.

You don't seem to be aware of any of these facts.

You claim to be knowledgeable about the New Testament, but is sure seeks like you aren't familiar with. Luke's introduction doesn't identify any eyewitnesses by name that he is referencing, but your free to believe Luke is lying his ass off about it.


Herodotus' Historia wouldn't be published in a modern peer reviewed journal because it doesn't meet the rigorous standards of modern analytical history.

But it is still an important source of historical information for scholars of ancient history who know how to handle and interpret writing from classical antiquity.


Your favorite atheist Scholar Bart Ehrman agrees with me about the historicity of how the eyewitnesses genuinely came to believe they saw Jesus after the crucifixion.

What we do know:.
1. We know that some (all? most? a few?) of his disciples who knew Jesus had been killed claimed at a later time (that his tomb was visited by some of his women followers three days later and was found to be empty.
2. They also claimed to have seen him alive afterwards.
3. They came to believe that he had been raised from the dead.
4. This claim completely changed their lives and the history of our world ever since.

- Bart Ehrman

The Disbelievers say they believe in reason and science, but clearly they are wearing blinders when it comes to Jesus and Christianity.

The last part of this link is behind a paywall, but there's enough to get the point across:

Jesus Christ did not Die on the Cross - A Cardiologist’s Perspective

Medical evidence indicates that Jesus(as) would have survived the crucifixion.

www.reviewofreligions.org

There is a range of evidence on the process of crucifixion in literature. However, the credibility of any discussion will be determined primarily by the credibility of the source material. For this ‘theory’, the source material includes the extensive and detailed descriptions of the process of flogging and crucifixion found in the New Testament Gospels,[3] and contemporary Christian and non-Christian authors.[14] The interpretations of modern writers, based on the knowledge of science and medicine, may offer additional insight into this....

...Survival length on the cross generally averaged three days (with a range of two to five days).[8,9] Jesus Christ(as) did not carry the crossbar from the flogging post to the site of crucifixion (as was customary for condemned men), one third of a mile (600 to 650 m) away.[3,4,7,8,9,13] At Golgotha, the crucifixion site, after twelve noon that Friday, Jesus Christ(as) cried out in a loud voice, bowed his head, and swooned.[3,15] He remained on the cross for only about two hours until the sixth hour on Friday, just before sunset, because the next day was the Sabbath and according to Jewish custom it was unlawful to keep anyone on the cross on the Sabbath, or the night previous. The soldiers broke the leg of the two thieves, but not that of Jesus Christ(as), as they mistook his being in a state of swoon for being dead.[3] Instead, one of the soldiers pierced his chest, with an infantry spear,[3] most probably into the pericardial cavity, producing a sudden flow of blood and water. After the dust storm and violent earthquake,...

 

[Dutch Uncle]

We're to accustomed from college to reading books in the literary style of analytical history, scientific writing, modern biography.

The entire Baghavad Gita relies on mythological writing to convey what they believed were universal truths and to make serious religious points.
The entire Norse Icelandic Sagas weave a lot of mythological elements alongside some reliable historical facts. I don't think it's because they got together and decided to lie. Myth was how universal truths, values, cultural zeigeist were transmitted.

It doesn't mean they were nefariously conspiring to lie.


At the end of the day whether Jesus walked on water or was born from a Virgin has no bearing on the core concepts of grace, ethics, and salvation in Christian theology.

Agreed. We're talking about cross-cultural differences in language, style and thousands of years of human knowledge. All of which should be taken into the context of the time and place in which it was written.

 

[martin]

We're to accustomed from college to reading books in the literary style of analytical history, scientific writing, modern biography.

The entire Baghavad Gita relies on mythological writing to convey what they believed were universal truths and to make serious religious points.
The entire Norse Icelandic Sagas weave a lot of mythological elements alongside some reliable historical facts. I don't think it's because they got together and decided to lie. Myth was how universal truths, values, cultural zeitgeist were transmitted.

It doesn't mean they were nefariously conspiring to lie.

Good point.

 

[Cypress]

All of which should be taken into the context of the time and place in which it was written.

That's a skill the historian of antiquity has to master.

Because the way Herodotus or the authors of the Norse Sagas were writing about 'history' they would never get published in modern peer-reviewed scholarly journals.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

That's a skill the historian of antiquity has to master.

Because the way Herodotus or the authors of the Norse Sagas were writing about 'history' they would never get published in modern peer-reviewed scholarly journals.

Well said and a point those wearing blinders refuse to concede. A lot can change in just 50 years within a single culture much less over 2000 years across multiple languages and cultures.

 

[Cypress]

The Disbelievers say they believe in reason and science, but clearly they are wearing blinders when it comes to Jesus and Christianity.

The last part of this link is behind a paywall, but there's enough to get the point across:

Jesus Christ did not Die on the Cross - A Cardiologist’s Perspective

Medical evidence indicates that Jesus(as) would have survived the crucifixion.

www.reviewofreligions.org

There is a range of evidence on the process of crucifixion in literature. However, the credibility of any discussion will be determined primarily by the credibility of the source material. For this ‘theory’, the source material includes the extensive and detailed descriptions of the process of flogging and crucifixion found in the New Testament Gospels,[3] and contemporary Christian and non-Christian authors.[14] The interpretations of modern writers, based on the knowledge of science and medicine, may offer additional insight into this....

...Survival length on the cross generally averaged three days (with a range of two to five days).[8,9] Jesus Christ(as) did not carry the crossbar from the flogging post to the site of crucifixion (as was customary for condemned men), one third of a mile (600 to 650 m) away.[3,4,7,8,9,13] At Golgotha, the crucifixion site, after twelve noon that Friday, Jesus Christ(as) cried out in a loud voice, bowed his head, and swooned.[3,15] He remained on the cross for only about two hours until the sixth hour on Friday, just before sunset, because the next day was the Sabbath and according to Jewish custom it was unlawful to keep anyone on the cross on the Sabbath, or the night previous. The soldiers broke the leg of the two thieves, but not that of Jesus Christ(as), as they mistook his being in a state of swoon for being dead.[3] Instead, one of the soldiers pierced his chest, with an infantry spear,[3] most probably into the pericardial cavity, producing a sudden flow of blood and water. After the dust storm and violent earthquake,...

They bought something some atheists said in podcasts, and closed off their minds to any alternatives.

Surviving a crucifixion is no more silly a theory than the idea all of Jesus followers had the same hallucination, and in my estimation it's less silly.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

They bought something some atheists said in podcasts, and closed off their minds to any alternatives.

Surviving a crucifixion is no more silly a theory than the idea all of Jesus followers had the same hallucination, and in my estimation it's less silly.

Same hallucination or all were lying their asses off. LOL

Agreed, since it's physiologically possible the odds favor Jesus surviving the crucifixion even if only for a short time. No magic, hallucinations or mass hoaxes required.

 

[Cypress]

Same hallucination or all were lying their asses off. LOL

Agreed, since it's physiologically possible the odds favor Jesus surviving the crucifixion even if only for a short time. No magic, hallucinations or mass hoaxes required.

Not only are there a few records of people surviving crucifixion as you pointed out, but Mark's gospel claims Pontius Pilate was surprised when Joseph of Arimethea told him Jesus died and was taken off the cross after only six hours. It supposedly could take a couple of days for some people to die from crucifixion.

 

[EdwinA]

Being stabbed with a spear would tend to speed things up, obviously. That could also be taken as an act of mercy by the soldier as well.

 

[martin]

Why would a normal, rational, educated person in the 21st Century say "Either the entire story must be taken literally or it should all be tossed as a complete fabrication"?

Not what I said, but I don't belong in this thread in the first place.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Not what I said, but I don't belong in this thread in the first place.

I was surmising the arguments of the resident militant atheists. They're a bit "odd". Why don't you belong?

 

[Cypress]

Why would a normal, rational, educated person in the 21st Century say "Either the entire story must be taken literally or it should all be tossed as a complete fabrication"?

Using that standard, we would also have to throw out Herodotus, The Norse Icelandic Sagas, the Anglo-Saxon chronicles as completely pointless and useless to the study of ancient and Medieval history

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Using that standard, we would also have to throw out Herodotus, The Norse Icelandic Sagas, the Anglo-Saxon chronicles as completely pointless and useless to the study of ancient and Medieval history

Agreed. What's weird is the militant atheists only use that line of argument for the Bible, not other historical writings from other religions and cultures. Weird!

BTW, where did Perry Penis-Lover run off to? We had so much fun together. LOL